Category: cha-cha

lying about cha-cha

here we go again. the prez says cha-cha is not a priority but somehow that does not inspire confidence.  not with the leadership of the upper and lower houses of congress suddenly seeing eye to eye on a constituent assembly that would vote separately on amendments, something they couldn’t agree on in gma’s term.  what happened since then?  major major lobbying no doubt by the imf, world bank, and adb, says herman tiu laurel, and i believe him. read The Chacha-FDI myth and this:

INVESTMENTS AND CHA-CHA
Herman Tiu Laurel

…The claim of Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte that Charter change (Cha-cha) to open up ownership of Philippine lands, alongside other national patrimonies, plus media and other sectors to foreign capital will bring in FDIs is a big fat lie. Foreign land speculators in cahoots with local land grabbers/ bankers will be the only ones who will reap the bonanza while ordinary Filipinos will be priced out of owning their own land. By then, transnationals would have gobbled up majority of the nation’s natural wealth and public franchises.

The real alternative is retention of protection for Filipinos and nationalization of large scale industries for all to benefit.

Off the Mark

Can we trust the likes of Enrile, who, aside from being a confirmed dagdag-bawas beneficiary in the 1995 senatorial elections, admitted in 1986 to his faked assassination in 1971 to justify the declaration of Martial Law? Can we trust Belmonte, who was instrumental in passing the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) in 2001 through the lame duck Congress after Edsa Dos by distributing P500,000 to each congressman from the oligarch-beneficiaries of the law, which gave us the “highest power rates” in Asia for the past 10 years? Can we even trust Misamis Occidental Rep. Loreto Leo Ocampos, chair of the House committee on constitutional reforms, or his aptitude for math when he declared, “I think our FDIs will TRIPLE from the current $2 billion to $3 billion once these constitutional reforms are implemented…”? As the promised Cha-cha reforms are sure to be massively off the mark, they are, in turn, right on track with the desires of the IMF, World Bank and ADB that are egging for it.

In fact, the track record of “reforms” of the Philippine Congress the past 25 years doesn’t inspire confidence at all – which is why it is scary that they are brandishing the term again. Consider some of the key REFORM packages Congress had championed and passed into law since the Edsa I “People Power” government, beginning with the Comprehensive Tax REFORM Program (CTRP) that replaced the progressive income tax system with the regressive value added tax (VAT) that transferred the tax burden to the vast majority of middle and low income consumers.

Also, consider the trade REFORM laws passed in the early ‘90s that introduced liberalization, deregulation, and privatization – now casting a curse on the Philippine economy, spurring uncontrolled fuel and power rate hikes, debilitating peso fluctuations, and privatizations that socialize the debts while privatizing the profits.

Oh, lest we forget: The EPIRA wouldn’t be called the Electric Power Industry REFORM Act for nothing – for it simply raised our electricity rates to the highest in Asia, if not the world!

[Power rates in Vietnam are $0.05/ kWh; Thailand, $ 0.15/kWh; and in the Philippines, from $0.21 to $0.25/kWh today.  However, ours will even get higher, especially when new rate hike petitions, including renewable energy (RE) feed-in tariffs as well as the huge jump in the Universal Charge of the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management (PSALM) Corp., are approved. This is the REAL reason Philippine foreign direct investments (FDIs) are at a dismal $1.7 billion compared with Thailand’s $6 billion and Vietnam’s $8 billion.]

Net Invasion

This Cha-cha for FDI campaign has been massive – so massive and multi-media in fact that it has invaded the Net. I have had a few run-ins with its advocates who use as bogeyman, the “privileged, favored and protected, abusive and exploitative Filipino oligarchs” like the Lopezes, Cojuangcos, et al., who take advantage of the Constitution’s protectionist provisions to monopolize businesses and keep out foreign capital at the expense of free market competition. But is this so? Isn’t it a fact that in many of the oligarch-controlled companies such as PLDT, San Miguel, Petron, etc., foreign capitalists are the major partners of these local oligarchs or, in the case of PLDT, the ones who actually control these companies via majority voting shares?

A look at the Asean website’s “Foreign Equity Policies” section already gives us an overview of how certain of its members conduct themselves on this issue. In the Philippines, for instance, it says that “100 percent foreign equity ownership is allowed in all areas except those in the negative list under the Foreign Investment Act of 1991 as amended.”

As for Thailand, “The 1972 Alien Business Law grants foreigners permission to engage in certain business enterprises… only if more than 50 percent of the capital is owned by Thai Nationals. However, for BOI promoted companies, majority foreign ownership is permitted for projects that export not less than 50 percent of sales.”

Meanwhile, even as Vietnam’s foreign equity rule there appears liberal, where “100 percent foreign equity ownership is allowed” – and this is a phrase often cited by the likes of AntiPinoy.com to buttress their point – it appears to be more of a simplistic reading of its Law on Foreign Investments, Art. 4, Sec. 3, which, if we were to go by a May 2011 US State Department investment climate assessment, is nuanced as follows:

“There are ownership limitations… Foreign ownership cannot exceed 49 percent of listed companies and 30 percent of listed companies in the financial sector. A foreign bank is allowed to establish a 100-percent foreign owned bank in Vietnam but may only own up to 20 percent of a local commercial bank. Individual foreign investors are usually limited to 15-percent ownership, though a single foreign investor may increase ownership to 20 percent through a strategic alliance with a local partner.”

Difficult Challenge

Let’s just keep in mind that no country will ever give away protection of its interests and concerns, much less, the privileges of its own people. Local PR pushers for this Cha-cha for FDI are pulling the wool over many Filipinos’ eyes. What everyone should realize is that a major factor in any country’s investment climate is the cost of power or electricity. Even our detractor, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Deputy Gov. Diwa Guinigundo, had to admit in a private NEDA briefing that “the most difficult challenge for the national government and the private sector (is) addressing the high cost of power in the country.”

However, Guinigundo, along with our senators and congressmen, don’t seem to have the balls to say this out loud in national media: That the exorbitant, predatory, and murderous power rates are the real reason FDIs shy away from our country. Instead, most of them lie, steal, and sell our nation out.

Filipinos should thus act now to stop their national swindles through Cha-cha. Write to newspapers; text radio programs; and send hate mails to those blasted legislative proponents. LET’S DEMAND OUR BIRTHRIGHT FOR PROTECTION IN OUR OWN LAND AS FILIPINOS AND TAXPAYING CITIZENS!

cha-cha crazy

there they go again, chattering about charter change, as if it were even do-able, what a waste of time.   read fr. joaquin bernas’s Finally a new Constitution in 2011?

In my view, one major obstacle to attempts to revise the 1987 Constitution is structural. It has a built-in unintended obstacle to change. And I do not know how this can be overcome this year.

Inmany respects the 1987 Constitution consists of significant borrowings from the 1935 Constitution. Unfortunately, however, the provision on the amendatory process is a carbon copy of the provision in the 1973 Constitution. Year after year since 1987 this has been the major obstacle to change. Why so?

The text says: “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) a constitutional convention. . . . The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”

The provision is one formulated for a unicameral legislative body but it is now meant to work for a bicameral Congress. This was not a tactical product designed by an evil genius. It is merely the result of oversight. But the oversight has spawned major problems.

First, must Senate and Housecome together in joint session before they can do anything that can lead to charter change? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on this question: Congress could not begin to work on constitutional change unless they first came together in joint session. The 1987 Constitution is non-committal.

Second, since the text of the Constitution is not clear about requiring a joint session, can Congress work on constitutional change analogously to the way it works on ordinary legislation, that is where they are and as they are? I have always maintained that Congress can, but this is by no means a settled matter. There are those who believe that the importance of Charter change demands a joint session.

Third, should Congress decide to come together in joint session, must Senate and House vote separately or may they vote jointly? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on the need for separate voting; the present Constitution is silent about this. But I am sure that the Senate will not agree to a joint voting where their number can be buried in an avalanche of House votes, an avalanche of votes which can mean the abolition of the Senate! How will this issue be settled? Howsoever the matter might be settled by agreement of the majority of both houses, someone in the minority will run to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision.

What about a constitutional convention? But the business of calling a constitutional convention is fraught with the same problems. Should Congress choose to call a constitutional convention, must the two houses be in joint session? And if in joint session, should they vote separately?

Briefly, constitutional change in 2011 or later can happen only if the members of Congress can agree to work in harmony and if the Supreme Court will not throw a monkey wrench on how Congress decides to do it. Can the members of Congress rise above self-interest and work together harmoniously? Or are we waiting for an extra-constitutional change?

i like it, this obstacle not designed by some evil genius, rather an oversight of cory’s constitutional commission.   it means that charter change can happen only if and when our legislators get their act together, and that’s just so NOT in any one’s agenda.

extra-constitutional change?   another edsa, he means?   but a successful edsa, a successful revolutionary government, one that brings about deep-seated change, is soooo not in the stars, not until a true leader rises, one in the mold of rizal or bonifacio but wise to the ways of the world today and highly-biased for the filipino.

america’s boy 2010

na-confuse naman ako kay carmen pedrosa, kolumnista ng philippine star na panahon pa ni fvr ay kilala nang chacha-federalism advocate.   inaamin niya na she has been / is critical of noynoy aquino’s candidacy, allegedly because he is the candidate of a “former colonial power” that’s against constitutional reform, i.e., chacha.

A number of readers have asked me why I am zeroing in on Noynoy. Why don’t I criticize MannyVillar or Gibo Teodoro or Dick Gordon? I could, but that would not help in exposing what I consider the most important aspect of this election: the intervention by a former colonial power.

The main objective of this intervention was to frustrate constitutional reform and to make sure that a candidate of their choosing should be elected. That candidate was Noynoy.

but really?   america is against charter change?   is not the opposite true?   i was thinking more along the lines of lila shahani sounding off on filipino voices against anti-pinoy anti-noynoy bloggers who are pro-american and pro-chacha.

Ben’s a half-White guy trying to hustle a business who has a vested interest in endorsing Gordon: they’re related. Bong’s busy opening websites in Arizona, etc. His Dad hobnobs with US officials. They’re both neo-cons who r very pro-American and I suspect want charter change so foreigners can have 100% ownership of Philippine companies. There is a Gordon/Mindanao link because the US, among others, wants its hands on Mindanao’s endless resources. Note that Davao contributed a lot to the Red Cross during Gordon’s time.

They hate Noynoy because he won’t touch his Mom’s constitution. Their dislike of Noynoy is distinct from those of others here who simply prefer Gibo or Villar, etc, which is certainly not a problem. Noynoy has been their agenda from the get-go: 90% of the posts on Get Real r about Noynoy. Why? Because they stand to lose a lot if Noynoy wins. So it’s a concentrated campaign to demonize a candidate and his supporters. But the point is that Gordon is willing to sign off far more to the US than most Filipino patriots r willing to accept.

I, for one, am not against constitutional change as such, but think there should be a plebiscite and it should be discussed nationally outside the context of a presidential election. It should most certainly not be enacted simply to extend GMA’s stay in power. After all this noise that Bong and Ben have been making, I have started to wonder MORE about Gordon’s motivations, despite his flamboyant statements about Bangit and Villar. Like Enrile, I wonder if these hits r hard enough, or if they r simply for show to placate the general public. I find it odd to routinely see people in Makati sporting the green AND red bracelets on their wrists at the same time: what does that mean? I’m surprised they don’t even bother to be more subtle.

I for one am not willing to sign off this country to GMA and to greater foreign interests, which is why I am not for charter change right now. I believe the Filipino middle class desperately needs to grow, and needs to be given a chance away from the stranglehold of monopolies and foreign corporate interests. I think the Philippines should primarily be owned by Filipinos.

seems to me that america is pro-charter change (think mindanao) and probably supporting the likes of villar, gibo, and gordon even if these candidates swear they’re not raring to chacha, haha, who do they think they’re kidding.

Midnight CJ and the Four R’s

Rene Saguisag

The framers could have said the position of Chief Justice (CJ) should be filled up immediately and that only the CJ could swear in a Prez. They did not. They said any judicial vacancy should be filled up within 90 days, which I suggest is even merely directory, not even mandatory. No way we can mandamus a Prez.

The case of Justice Minita Chico Nazario, where the vacancy was filled up six months later is instructive; she twisted in the wind that long before finally taking her oath and becoming a credit to the SC.

It took more than six months for CJ Querube C. Makalintal to replace CJ Roberto R. Concepcion. Thus, the virtue of collegiality. It also shows that when the Constitution gave the Prez 90 days to name a new Justice, the lack of urgency was seen. May the SC order the JBC, headed by the CJ?

When Marcos won, if my memory is true, I had at least two excellent teachers who had been named to the bench just before Macapagal himself was to step down. Seen as more than qualified, maybe, but no one in the judiciary, or elsewhere, is indispensable. The two had to go. In May, 1982, for a working week, we had no Supreme Court at all! All told, vacant days added together, we had no CJ for years. The nation moved on. There simply was no fire.

Now we have a golden chance for a transparent process in lieu of arcana. Justice Rene Corona must disclose in open hearing his suspicion that Justice Tony Carpio was out to smear him. Tony denied the charge, corroborated by Nanding Campos, who Rene had said tried to influence him improperly by using three ex-Justices to approach him (which those of us of the old school us would never do; it just was not and should not be done).

GMA acknowledged on December 30, 2002 that she divides our people. Now, she plans to continue in public life, and some salivate. Why? Are these but the noises of democracy we were glad to have again in 1986 after 15 years of coercive elimination of dissenters, leading to Jackson’s unanimity of the graveyard?

Charito Planas I first met in Washington, D.C. in 1982. She has chosen to be with GMA. The right to pick we cannot question, be it elixir or poison we choose. But, as in the case of Gary Olivar, what does she have to say about the Morong 43? The duo both courageously fought martial misrule. May God bless them both. But we in the human rights community need to hear them on the 43.

FOCAP (like our friend, Tony Lopez) could be naughty. Last Tuesday it held a forum entitled Who Will Fix the Mess? I saw no one take issue with the tendentious theme. All prez wannabes said No to operating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Bravo! A Korean firm said it would need a billion pesos at least, which may yet double, or triple, to repair and upgrade it. But, we are pasable-OK-na-puede-na Pinoys. I hope Prez Cory and I would no longer be blamed for not operating the plant in 1986, when Chernobyl made it easy to mothball it. But, I had not realized I was so effective chairing the Cabinet and Senate Committees on it that here we are, 24 years after the event and no Prez or wannabe is for operating it.

This fact emerged with crystal clarity in the FOCAP affair. Nick Perlas was with me in the 1986-1992 effort.

Even Engineer FVR would not dare put the nuke plant on line (his home province is Pangasinan; I married one from there and it now welcomes nuke power in a nation where Murphy’s Law—if anything can go wrong, it will—prevails in rampancy: I am not sure we can be like Russia or Japan ably dealing with Chernobyl or Toyota’s recall). We need new energy plans. We need to know from the bets what their plans are, on top of their other sales talk, to pay public servants above the level of corruption by laying down the economic foundation of honesty. Dick Gordon would want school teachers to get P40,000 a month, less than the additional bonus of House employees last Christmas given by Congressmen: how much did they get for themselves?

There must be a better deal for employees, whether public or private, for them to compete for admission into public service.

On specifics, what do they have to say on senior citizens discounts where an employer’s profit is marginal and who will go under with the additional discount? Is this not confiscatory? Any subsidy? Else, the employer may fire employees to salvage the ailing business. There must be a health program too so one with a dollar (less than P50) can have dialysis monthly. More than Motherhood spiels we need from the leading bets. Those who have no chance should withdraw, to improve the chances of even a bad bet; else, by hurting him, we may get a worse, or even the worst one, in lying, cheating and stealing. Balzac said that behind every great wealth is a great crime. How many of the bets have no great wealth?

Anyway, I need to see in the text of the 1987 Constitution, or maybe, someone can show us that, in the debates, the intent was that in the judiciary “midnight appointments” are allowed, contrary to what the SC has nixed. I know how careful the JBC and SC are in observing the no-appointment rule during the critical two months. That was why the promotion of some RTC Judges created a hassle some years ago (even if admittedly, the nominees were good); there was static about antedating to make it appear as not falling within the interdicted two-month period. No transparency. Shielding the nomination process from scrutiny should go. If it would need a constitutional change so be it. Back to the Commission on Appointments? Noynoy I don’t recall ever having opposed any change in the 1987 Consti. He and his Mom, along with millions, simply wanted to do the Right thing in the Right way at the Right time for the Right reason.

Nothing says the CJ should administer the oath. Cory and Doy were sworn in on February 25, 1986 by “mere” Associate Justices, who used the rather unconventional formulation I rushed the night before in a rinky-dink typewriter. Indeed, an ordinary notary public can administer it. When we took power in 1986, I had no time to take it but then it was a risky revolutionary government we had inaugurated. Later, in a more normal time, I took it before a notary. It could not be said that I violated my Four R’s.

Today, what is not being violated in the violent time in the vilest possible way?